SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

251 ITR 99 (SC).: When the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner issues to an assessee a notice under section 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. ....... The assessee is, therefore, by virtue of the notice under section 271 put to notice that

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

251 ITR 133 (Guj.). 28. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is not a disputed fact that the ownership of the said movable assets such as moving and ready to use machines are owned by the assessee. The assessee has made use of these assets related to construction and infrastructure

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

251 ITR 133 (Guj.). 28. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is not a disputed fact that the ownership of the said movable assets such as moving and ready to use machines are owned by the assessee. The assessee has made use of these assets related to construction and infrastructure

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

251 ITR 133 (Guj.). 28. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is not a disputed fact that the ownership of the said movable assets such as moving and ready to use machines are owned by the assessee. The assessee has made use of these assets related to construction and infrastructure

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

251 ITR 133 (Guj.). 28. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is not a disputed fact that the ownership of the said movable assets such as moving and ready to use machines are owned by the assessee. The assessee has made use of these assets related to construction and infrastructure

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

251 ITR 133 (Guj.). 28. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is not a disputed fact that the ownership of the said movable assets such as moving and ready to use machines are owned by the assessee. The assessee has made use of these assets related to construction and infrastructure

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

251 ITR 133 (Guj.). 28. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is not a disputed fact that the ownership of the said movable assets such as moving and ready to use machines are owned by the assessee. The assessee has made use of these assets related to construction and infrastructure